ACLU And Others Weigh In On CIPA Injunction

A report on censorware.net has an update on the legal fight over the Children's Internet Protection Act; yesterday the ACLU, ALA and others filed briefs supporting the injunction calling CIPA unconstitutional issued by a three-judge court last May. The Supreme Court will hear the case on March 5th. (A search on "CIPA" is a good way to catch up on this act, which is basically about installing mandatory censorware on child-accessable publicly funded computers.)

Comments

Others more important?

[lpret]

I think this issue, and many others, all come down to one simple question, " Are some people's rights more valuable than others? " I don't think the constitution supports that. Simply because kids could access a computer, why should it be censored when there are users who's rights will then be violated if they use it?

Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[Acidic_Diarrhea]

Strangely enough, I'm on the same side as the ACLU on this one. I don't find myself here very often!

But anyway, kids need to be kept away from pornographic sites - that's clear. In the home, that's the job of the parents. In the library, that's the job of the library. Parents should be able to view the library as a trusted place to leave their kids. What needs to happen is that computers need to be available to kids which do have censorware installed but there also needs to be either a room that only adults are allowed into where computers free of censorware are available OR, upon issuing a library card, adults receive a password and user name to disable the censorware. That way, if kids are caught bypassing the censorware with a password, we can find out which user lost/lent his card to the wrong set of kids.

I don't want kids to look at naughty sites but I want people without Internet access to enjoy the fun of porno-babes as much as I do....well, not as much since they're in a public place. ;-)

Re:Montel Williams Is My Cousin

[Saeger]

My thoughts exactly.

You don't see Europeans running wild in the streets humping everything in site, yet they're exposed to "strong" nudity everywhere growing up.

Still, I'd be interested in learning of the evolutionary psychology behind Puritanical views on sex. Maybe it's simply that as people age they get bitter and embarrased by sexuality, and so take it out on the young? Or maybe keeping sex taboo actually serves to keep society more stable overall (and less stable in other -repressed- ways)?

--

This amicus brief quote says it all

[FunWithHeadlines]

" Because libraries lack the technological capability to block the Internet in any narrowly tailored fashion, CIPA's "technology protection measure" requirement effectively forces them to use commercial blocking software. Commercial blocking software is, however, ill-suited to the requirements of the First Amendment. First, the current market does not offer products designed to filter out only the low-value speech barred by CIPA. As a consequence, the blocking software currently available on the market purposefully blocks far broader categories that include protected speech. Second, companies that produce blocking software have little incentive to tailor their products narrowly. To the contrary, because underblocking, not overblocking, generates complaints, these companies have strong economic incentives to design their software to block in an overbroad fashion. Third, commercial blocking software companies can, and in some instances do, use criteria that systematically discriminate against certain viewpoints. As a consequence, CIPA's "technology protection measure" requirement forces libraries to regulate speech in manner that is systematically overbroad and that can involve viewpoint discrimination."

So libraries are de-facto forced to use commercial blockers. Commerical blockers block more sites than they should. They have economic incentives to block more sites than they should. And they have little consequence if they block sites that they personally just don't care for, if they idealogically oppose a site.

You could hardly ask for a more ham-handed solution to the problem.
--------

Re:ACLU, wrong again

[praksys]

Blocking sites of prurient interest does not prevent anyone from accessing those sites, only at public libraries and public schools.

A fairly large segment of the adult US population does not have access to newspapers, books, or the internet, except through public libraries. A very large segment of the child population has no access to these things except through public libraries or through schools. Adults certainly have a 1st amendment right to such access, and children ought to have a similar right.

Even if this were just a matter of preventing access to porn there would be a reasonable 1st amendment argument here. As it happens there is a lot more at stake, and a very strong first amendment argument. The sort of software mandated by CIPA often blocks political sites and health information sites. The courts usually take a dim view of any law which makes it harder for people, especially poor people, to get this kind of information.

One implementation...

[chill]

My local library -- Spokane County, WA -- seems to have found a reasonable compromise.

When obtaining a library card for a minor, if they want Internet access they need a parent/guardian to sign off on it.

The library cards are barcoded and that is used to activate the Internet terminals.

To sign off, a parent basically signs a form saying "no access", "filtered access" or "unfiltered access". It is explained to them that "filtered access" is a "best effort only" and that the library staff aren't babysitters or the moral guardians of your children.

It seems to have placated the locals -- very few complaints have been generated.